William Michael Bumpus filed an action against United Airlines, Inc. concerning reemployment and discrimination protections under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the events surrounding his military service, furlough status, recall communications, and United’s responses across multiple years. The ruling detailed the sequence of events beginning with his initial military leave and continuing through later recall offers, medical limitations, and employment-related communications.
United hired Mr. Bumpus as a pilot in June 2000. In September 2001, he took an approved military leave of absence to serve in the Air Force Reserve. He expected to return in September 2003. In February 2002, United issued a letter stating that he would be furloughed effective March 2, 2002. On that date, a representative contacted him by phone to convey the furlough decision. He informed United that he remained on active duty and would continue serving.
The record showed that United changed his internal status from military leave to active status, then immediately placed him on furlough on March 2, 2002. The applicable collective bargaining agreement provided a seven-year recall window lasting until March 2009. A later agreement extended the recall period to March 2012. Mr. Bumpus alleged that he did not discover the change in status until he filed a grievance in March 2021.
The background demonstrated that during the early years of his absence he remained on active military duty even as he was listed as furloughed by United. He continued serving in the Air Force Reserve for several years following his furlough.
In September 2006, Mr. Bumpus experienced a medical event while on active duty that required hospitalization. Six days later, United issued a recall notice. He bypassed the recall offer. United issued another recall notice in May 2007. He accepted the second recall offer approximately two weeks after receiving it.
After accepting the recall, he informed United about medical limitations stemming from the September 2006 event. United declined to reinstate him at that time and did not offer an alternative position. Approximately eight months after he accepted recall, he was informed that he would remain in furlough status until March 1, 2012.
In February 2012, United issued a reinstatement offer. Mr. Bumpus requested a military deferment, which United approved. In September 2013, United issued a final recall offer. He bypassed the offer. Several years later, in June 2019, he expressed interest in returning to work. United responded that his employment had been terminated years earlier in 2007.
Mr. Bumpus brought multiple claims under federal and state law. His federal claims involved reemployment rights under sections 4311, 4312, and 4313 of the statute. He also brought claims under Illinois law, which incorporated protections parallel to federal provisions.
United moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. When reviewing the motion, the court accepted well-pleaded allegations as true and considered whether the complaint stated a plausible claim.
The court first examined whether the cumulative period of military service exceeded the five-year limitation contained in the statute. The time between September 2001 and May 2007 was examined chronologically. The record showed that he served on active duty from September 2001 until March 2002. Although United placed him on furlough on March 2, 2002, the complaint alleged that he continued serving in the Air Force Reserve throughout this period.
Mr. Bumpus argued that his period of absence should not count toward the five-year limit because some of his absence coincided with his furlough status. He argued that service performed during furlough should not be treated as an absence due to military service. He further argued that portions of his service did not conflict with obligations to United and therefore should not count toward the cumulative limit.
The court reviewed the statute and related guidance. It found that the relevant consideration was the total period during which a servicemember engaged in military service. The court did not adopt the distinction Mr. Bumpus proposed between periods of service that conflicted with employment obligations and those that did not. It concluded that the statute focused on cumulative service time and that periods of military service during furlough remained part of that cumulative total.
The court determined that the cumulative period of military service exceeded the statutory five-year limit before May 2007. Because the statute required the period of service to fall within the prescribed timeframe to qualify for reemployment, the court held that the reemployment claims under sections 4312 and 4313 could not proceed.
The court then evaluated the discrimination allegations under section 4311. These allegations involved two time periods. The first period concerned 2007, when United declined to extend a personal leave of absence similar to those provided to pilots of comparable seniority who were not servicemembers but who also had medical conditions preventing them from flying. The second period concerned 2019 and 2020, when United reinstated more than one hundred other pilots but did not reinstate Mr. Bumpus.
The court found that the complaint contained allegations that his military service was a motivating factor in the decisions. Although the statute required only that military status be a motivating factor, the court noted that the complaint alleged disparities in treatment that could satisfy the pleading standard. The court therefore allowed this portion of the case to proceed.
The court next addressed the Illinois state law claim. The state statute incorporated federal protections. Because the federal reemployment claims were dismissed, the corresponding state reemployment provisions were also dismissed. However, the portion of the state claim aligned with section 4311 discrimination protections remained.
The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the reemployment claims and the state-law claims tied to those provisions. It denied the motion regarding the discrimination claim and the related portion of the state-law claim.
If you are facing issues involving reemployment rights, service-related discrimination, or questions about protections under federal service-member employment law, our team at Whitcomb Selinsky PC assists individuals navigating these matters. To learn how we support service members seeking clarity on their rights, visit our USERRA page.